California Über Alles: Gov. Jerry Brown’s Onerous Vaccination Mandates

The 1979 Dead Kennedys song “California Über Alles” could be updated today to say that California Governor Jerry Brown’s secret police “have come for your unvaccinated niece.” On Tuesday, the once-again governor of California signed into law some of the most onerous vaccination mandates in America.

The state mandates apply to children who are enrolled in government or private schools, as well as in non-parental care such as day care. The newly enacted law also eliminates parents’ ability to assert philosophical or religious exemptions for vaccinations.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Rep John Duncan: ‘Permanent, Forever, Endless War in the Middle East’ is Not Conservative

Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr., in a speech Wednesday on the House of Representatives floor, quoted several prominent conservatives to help make the case that “there has been nothing conservative about our policy of permanent, forever, endless war in the Middle East.” In the speech, Duncan quotes, in turn, thought-provoking comments from Thomas Sowell, David Keene, Jon Utley, Peggy Noonan, and William F. Buckley, Jr.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

If You Want to Get Rid of ‘Racist Flags,’ How About Starting with the American Flag?

It looks like open season has been declared on the battle flag of Army of Northern Virginia, which is commonly referred to as the Confederate battle flag. But, if you are looking for a flag to ban as racist, you might as well start with the American flag.

After all, the American flag is associated with the United States government that sanctioned slavery from the enactment of the US Constitution in 1789 to the addition of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in December of 1865 — months after the end of the war with the Confederate States. The CS government, in comparison, existed for less than five years, with slavery legal the entire time.

The American flag flies now for a government whose drug war and larger law enforcement system is responsible for black Americans being harassed, arrested, and incarcerated in extraordinary numbers. Remember the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution makes an exception to allow slavery as “a punishment for crime.” This is an exception that has been employed much in America recently, with the number of people incarcerated in prisons and jails growing five-fold in the last thirty years.

Of course, the Confederate battle flag opponents come out every four years to yell out “gotcha, you’re a racist!” at any presidential candidate who refuses to recite that the South Carolina government should remove the “racist” Confederate battle flag from the grounds of the state capitol building. This occurs again and again despite the fact that the flag’s presence is a state matter over which the US president has no role in deciding.

The killing of several people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina last week has helped inflame the quadrennial attacks on the Confederate battle flag.

Some people even believe the root cause of the killings resides in a statewide hatred of back people that is interwoven with the fabric of that Confederate battle flag flying on the state capitol grounds.

It is not too surprising to see film director Michael Moore’s vehement comments calling for someone to tear down the Confederate battle flag on the South Carolina capitol grounds and relating the flag’s presence to the killings. His comments are one sample of the torrent of similar comments being made since the killings.

Over at The Intercept, Jon Schwarz does not want to stop at taking down one flag. Schwarz writes that taking down the Confederate battle flag at the South Carolina capitol grounds “seems like a good start, but maybe not the place to end.” Schwarz lists six additional cultural items to purge from the state — three statues, the name of a street in Charleston, the Charleston city seal, and the South Carolina state flag. He doesn’t claim that any of these cultural items say anything explicitly racist. Rather, he says they all have some connection to slavery.

Schwarz sees this purge of his listed cultural items as just a start. Indeed, he is seeking suggestions for expanding the purge list:

I’m sure there’s much more that could be added to this list. If you’re from South Carolina and would like to make some suggestions, please get in touch. (Also please get in touch if you have any ideas for getting Andrew Jackson off our money.)

As alluded to in the Andrew Jackson reference, Schwarz’s desired purge goes far beyond South Carolina. As he says, “every other place in America also celebrates the ugliest parts of our past.”

It is doubtful that a very high percentage of people looking at a twenty dollar bill or one of the statues Schwarz wants removed from South Carolina are celebrating the most inhumane things the individuals represented, did, or may be associated with. Some people take in the aesthetic and leave it at that. Some people ponder the times during which the individuals represented lived. Some people curse or celebrate the individuals represented. Different strokes for different folks.

The call for a widespread elimination of cultural items that may cause some people discomfort because of a relationship to slavery — and potentially a much longer list of verboten people, occurrences, and beliefs — brings to mind the destruction of cultural items in war. Addressing the intentional destruction of cultural items by the Islamic State (ISIS), Sturt W. Manning, the director of the Cornell Institute of Archaeology and Material Studies and professor of classical architecture at Cornell University, explains:

All attacks on archaeological sites and artifacts are brutal assaults on our collective human memory. They deprive us of the evidence of human endeavors and achievements.

The destruction eloquently speaks of the human folly and senseless violence that drives ISIS. The terror group is destroying the evidence of the great history of Iraq; it has to, as this history attests to a rich alternative to its barbaric nihilism.

While the sought purge of cultural items in South Carolina and throughout America is different in many ways from the destruction of cultural items pursued by ISIS, Manning’s observations suggest some important similarities. In America such cultural cleansing similarly threatens to obliterate Americans’ “memories” and the evidence of history. The whitewashing also attempts to alter the American narrative to remove the alternatives, with their both good and bad aspects, that may be suggested by the purged cultural items.

The German government’s attack on “degenerate art” in the 1930s and ‘40s is an illustrative example of the systematic destruction of cultural items.

Many people will find more surprising than Moore and Schwarz’s comments the articles by writers identified with libertarianism who single out the Confederate battle flag as universally conveying a predominantly or solely racist message.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell on Their Decades Promoting Liberty and Shared Optimism for the Future

This week on the Ron Paul Liberty Report, Ron Paul discussed with guest Lew Rockwell their many years working to advance liberty, as well as their shared optimism for the future. For people new to libertarian ideas, the engaging conversation is a good starting point for obtaining a feel for the fight for liberty in America since the 1970s and an understanding of the contributions made by Paul and Rockwell in that fight. For anyone brought down by the relentless advance of leviathan government, watching the interview may provide a jolt of assurance that there is hope for the cause of liberty.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Judge Napolitano: What if the US Consulate in Benghazi was a Terrorist Weapons Warehouse?

Judge Andrew Napolitano, in a new riveting two-minute video monologue, is asking important questions regarding the killings of the US ambassador to Libya, another diplomat, and CIA contractors in Benghazi, Libya in 2012. Napolitano is also asking about the connection between these killings and a secret US program to provide weapons to terrorists.

Was the United States government handing out weapons in Libya to groups the US government had identified as terrorist organizations? Was the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi due to this illegal weapons transfer program? Napolitano wants answers, and he seems optimistic that answers will be revealed soon.

In a series of provocative questions in the Thursday video monologue, Napolitano, a Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Advisory Board member, asks:

And what if the weapons that the United States government illegally sold to American enemies were the same weapons used to kill the United States ambassador in Benghazi? And what if the reason the consulate in Benghazi was attacked was because it wasn’t just a consulate — it was a warehouse for weapons, and the rebels knew the weapons were there, and they wanted more than we were giving to them?

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Former NSA Director Michael Hayden: It’s ‘Cool!’ That Congress Has Not Restrained Mass Surveillance

Almost four months after ludicrously claiming to be an “unrelenting libertarian” while on stage with Ron Paul Institute Board Member Andrew Napolitano, Michael Hayden — whose rotation through high-level United States intelligence offices included several years as director of the National Security Agency (NSA) — has found some true common ground with Napolitano. Like Napolitano, Hayden is now on record declaring that the US mass surveillance program will continue unhindered by the recently enacted USA FREEDOM Act.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

South Dakota Native American Tribe Legalizes Marijuana

The Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe became last week the first South Dakota American Indian tribe to approve marijuana legalization. The approval came via the tribe’s executive committee voting on Thursday to adopt a legalization ordinance.

The tribe’s reservation is located in South Dakota, a state that still outlaws medical and recreational marijuana.

The new ordinance allows recreational marijuana use by people who are at least 21 years old. Medical marijuana use is an option for people of all ages, including minors with a doctor’s recommendation and the supervision of a parent or guardian. The Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe is thus joining the 23 states, the District of Colombia, Guam, and Puerto Rico that have legal medical marijuana and the four states — Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington — and DC that have legal recreational marijuana.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Small Victory: Decades-Old Database of Nevada Handgun Owners to be Destroyed

In this age of mass surveillance, it is uncommon to hear of the destroying of a government’s surveillance database — even if in just one American county. Yet, that is what the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department is preparing to do.

As required by Senate Bill 175 that the Nevada governor signed into law on June 2, the police department appears set to destroy, within a year, all physical and digital records of handgun owners that the police department has accumulated under a Clark County registration requirement implemented in 1948.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

The Prosecution of Dennis Hastert and the Government’s War on Cash

Back on March 31, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced what many media reports heralded as a big rollback in the use of structuring allegations to justify seizing assets from individuals. Yet, here we are less than three months later with the DOJ prosecuting former US House of Representatives Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) for two crimes — structuring and lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about why he employed structuring.

Despite the DOJ’s March 31 talking points used to allay people’s worries about the US government punishing people for the nonviolent action of moving cash in or out of their own accounts in a manner the US government disapproves, the Hastert prosecution shows that business as usual continues at the DOJ. In fact, the willingness of the DOJ to undertake this very high-profile prosecution where there is no alleged crime beyond structuring and lying about structuring may well indicate an escalation in the US government’s structuring crackdown.

According to the DOJ, Hastert faces punishment of up to 10 years in prison and a $500,000 fine if he is convicted. It is thus hard to argue that Hastert is in a better position than the many people whose money has been seized because of structuring allegations but who can choose to just walk away with a significant monetary loss. Hastert’s legal bills are mounting to defend himself against the DOJ that can spend without restraint in pursuit of a conviction. Even if Hastert can beat the charges or make a deal so he can walk free, his financial loss will be very high.

Though allegations are flying that Hastert has committed “sexual misconduct” (criminal or not), none of that is used as a basis for his prosecution. Instead, as Conor Friedersdorf notes in The Atlantic, “The alarming aspect of this case is the fact that an American is ultimately being prosecuted for the crime of evading federal government surveillance.” “That has implications for all of us,” continues Friedersdorf.

Indeed, Ludwig von Mises Institute President Jeff Deist categorizes Hastert’s prosecution as part of the US government’s larger war on cash that puts Americans’ privacy and liberty in peril.

One of the great benefits of using cash for transactions is the anonymity it can provide, allowing, for example, buyers and sellers to keep their identities secret from one another and from the snooping eyes of third parties, including governments. But, this benefit from using cash is under attack in America. One of the primary means of attack is the US government’s practice of seizing cash from individuals who at one time move $10,000 or more in cash, or who engage in multiple actions that together move $10,000 or more in cash.

Carl Menger Center for the Study of Money and Banking President Paul-Martin Foss lays out in his article “The Kafkaesque World of Financial Reporting and Asset Forfeiture” the process by which American financial institutions — from banks to money wiring services — have been ratting to the US government on their customers’ cash activities. Foss explains how the US government has in turn used that information to seize large sums of money from people without the presentation of any proof that the individuals committed any crimes — other than moving their own cash. As Foss details, financial institutions are required to report all cash transactions of $10,000 or more via a “currency transaction report” as well as, via a “suspicious activity report,” all transactions of less than that amount that may be seen as “structuring” to avoid the $10,000 reporting threshold. Foss points to the enactment of a law nearly thirty years ago as putting this process into high gear by relieving financial institutions of all liability for their betrayals of customers’ privacy:

Because the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 released banks from liability for reporting “suspicious” transactions to law enforcement, there is no reason for banks not to report your transactions to the government. They cannot be held liable for reporting too much of your information, but they could be prosecuted by the government for reporting too little information, if the government decides that suspicious activity was taking place and was not being reported. So to cover their own derrieres and keep from going to jail, banks report as much information on you as they can.

The result is the government seizing people’s cash though there is no proof whatsoever that the individuals did anything illegal aside from moving their own cash. The burden is then on the seizure victims to go through a difficult and often unsuccessful effort to regain their funds. The process to regain seized money can be very costly with high lawyer fees that may be impossible to pay because of the deprivation of the seized funds that started all the legal mess. As Foss notes, this is Kafkaesque.

Ron Paul Institute Advisory Board Member Andrew Napolitano relates in an April Fox News interview some of the absurd travails of dairy farmer Randy Sowers from whom the US government — through the Internal Revenue Service — is keeping nearly $30,000 dollars it seized from him based merely on the fact that Sowers deposited large amounts of cash from his farm’s sales in his own bank account. Going to the root of the problem, Napolitano explains that “the true culprit is the Congress that intentionally wrote these laws very loose so that the IRS does not even have to have any evidence that the structuring is unlawful; it could just be coincidental.”

Rachel Wiener describes more of Sowers’ predicament in the Washington Post. Initially, she relates, the US government had seized $295,220 from Sowers. That seized money was used against Sowers as leverage to pressure him to agree to allow the government to keep 10 percent. Wiener concludes that, three years after the seizure, Sowers has not gotten back any of that 10 percent “and almost certainly never will.” This puts Sowers in the same boat with many other victims of the US government’s seizures program. Wiener explains:

Based on Freedom of Information Act requests, the libertarian Institute for Justice has reported that the Internal Revenue Service has seized almost a quarter-billion dollars in such cases from 2005 to 2012, about half of which was never returned. A third of those cases, like the Sowers case, did not involve allegations of criminal activity beyond the structured deposits themselves.

Some hope for restraint in the US government’s pursuit of such cash seizures may seem to be offered by the issuing on March 31 of a new DOJ policy directive. The press release announcing the policy directive does have a promising title: “Attorney General Restricts Use of Asset Forfeiture in Structuring Offenses.” But, from past experience with DOJ policy changes supposedly restricting prosecutions of people complying with state medical marijuana laws and “equitable sharing” of property seizures with state and local police, we are well advised to be very skeptical of any DOJ announcements of limitations on policing or prosecuting powers.

While the DOJ received some media coverage heralding its March 31 announcement, a close look at the supposed rollback shows that it is illusory, amounting to little more than an appeal by the US government for us to just trust it to behave better.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.